3 ms·

According to one API I follow, SF county's Rt is slightly below 1, which means its case count is halving fairly slowly... and its cases/100k is still slightly a

According to one API I follow, SF county's Rt is slightly below 1, which means its case count is halving fairly slowly... and its cases/100k is still slightly above 10, which is CDC's benchmark for prevalence. They're probably on the verge of being able to relax some mitigation measures, but those mitigation measures are what keeps those numbers low, so that requires a big degree of caution. I definitely wouldn't say they are being too conservative with it, they're just on the verge of being able to relax a smidge.

spookthesunset 5y ago
> They're probably on the verge of being able to relax some mitigation measures, but those mitigation measures are what keeps those numbers low, so that requires a big degree of caution. This circular logic makes me tear my hair out. "Cases down? Lockdowns are working! Can't stop now" "Cases up? We need to keep these lockdowns!". There is zero exit criteria in this logic, which is why we are trapped in this vicious cycle of unending restrictions. It's the exact same argument as "Is it raining? Yes? It means rain dances work! Better keep doing them!" and "It is raining? No? It means we haven't done enough rain dances!" And all these restrictions might as well be rain dances at this point. It is just shit people threw against the wall in some panic'd attempt to "do something". Nobody seems to care if any of it works and asking questions is met with vicious attack.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  There's nothing circular about that. If Rt is above 1, mitigation will need to happen somehow - whether through natural immunity, death, vaccination, masks, distancing, whatever - until Rt goes below 1. If Rt is below 1, mitigation measures can be relaxed up to the point where Rt goes above 1 again. I personally look at four metrics - ICU capacity above/below 85%, test positive ratio above/below 5%, Rt above/below 1, and Case prevalence above/below 10/100k. If all four are below, then I'm hosting parties with my vaccinated friends. Otherwise, I'm trying not to contribute to spread.
- somethoughts 5y ago
  I think "the rain dances cause rain circular logic" would be true if (and a big if) it weren't for other states trying different, less strict strategies. Clearly some states are explicitly not rain dancing and are facing headwinds. And that's the beauty of state and to some extent even more locally based strategies versus national mandates. As long as there is a national agreed upon mechanism for measurement - its actually quite great that some states are willing to be guinea pigs and their citizenry are willing to go with different riskier strategies and experiments. In fact the steadfastness and persistence of some states sticking to their strategies even in the face of significant headwinds is a plus as it creates an even richer dataset for research and analysis. The headwinds these states are facing provides assurance to those in states with the stricter mandates that the mandates aren't just a pure power grab and government control and actually do have a benefit that is measurable.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    > its actually quite great that some states are willing to be guinea pigs and their citizenry are willing to go with different riskier strategies and experiments. I mean technocracy is great an all... but I'd prefer to not be a participant in a huge uncontrolled experiment. Usually when you do experiments on humans you get their consent first. It's usually quite a process to go through. Doing experiments on humans when those experiments can straight lead people to losing their livelihoods, their jobs, their families, their mental health, their lives.... pretty fucking evil. Not sure that would pass any university's review board at all. In saner times, it would probably get investigated by some UN agency for human rights violations but hey... who cares about all that when it's a global pandemic, right? Inalienable human rights are just a formality, right? So yeah, I really don't consent to participating in this experiment. How do I opt out?
    - secabeen 5y ago
      > So yeah, I really don't consent to participating in this experiment. How do I opt out? Stay home, don't physically interact with others. If that's not to your liking, move to a state or country with less strict rules and less robust governance.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  If this were modeled as a control loop with a external plant model it would be perfectly consistent with trying to extinguish the spread of covid. Other points of interest: R value eat at or higher than one increase anti-spread measures R value a little less than one - hold current social measures R value much smaller than 1 consider relaxing measures However we should also analyze That just about at every turn many places are relaxing too bringing numbers back up and re-stressing icus.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    But all that assumes these measures do anything all! Prove these measures actually work (and to a degree that outweighs their cost) and then we can talk! Hence my rain dance analogy. Until you prove this crap works, what we are doing is no better than rain dances.

spookthesunset 5y ago

> They're probably on the verge of being able to relax some mitigation measures, but those mitigation measures are what keeps those numbers low, so that requires a big degree of caution. This circular logic makes me tear my hair out. "Cases down? Lockdowns are working! Can't stop now" "Cases up? We need to keep these lockdowns!". There is zero exit criteria in this logic, which is why we are trapped in this vicious cycle of unending restrictions. It's the exact same argument as "Is it raining? Yes? It means rain dances work! Better keep doing them!" and "It is raining? No? It means we haven't done enough rain dances!" And all these restrictions might as well be rain dances at this point. It is just shit people threw against the wall in some panic'd attempt to "do something". Nobody seems to care if any of it works and asking questions is met with vicious attack.

tunesmith 5y ago
There's nothing circular about that. If Rt is above 1, mitigation will need to happen somehow - whether through natural immunity, death, vaccination, masks, distancing, whatever - until Rt goes below 1. If Rt is below 1, mitigation measures can be relaxed up to the point where Rt goes above 1 again. I personally look at four metrics - ICU capacity above/below 85%, test positive ratio above/below 5%, Rt above/below 1, and Case prevalence above/below 10/100k. If all four are below, then I'm hosting parties with my vaccinated friends. Otherwise, I'm trying not to contribute to spread.
somethoughts 5y ago
I think "the rain dances cause rain circular logic" would be true if (and a big if) it weren't for other states trying different, less strict strategies. Clearly some states are explicitly not rain dancing and are facing headwinds. And that's the beauty of state and to some extent even more locally based strategies versus national mandates. As long as there is a national agreed upon mechanism for measurement - its actually quite great that some states are willing to be guinea pigs and their citizenry are willing to go with different riskier strategies and experiments. In fact the steadfastness and persistence of some states sticking to their strategies even in the face of significant headwinds is a plus as it creates an even richer dataset for research and analysis. The headwinds these states are facing provides assurance to those in states with the stricter mandates that the mandates aren't just a pure power grab and government control and actually do have a benefit that is measurable.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > its actually quite great that some states are willing to be guinea pigs and their citizenry are willing to go with different riskier strategies and experiments. I mean technocracy is great an all... but I'd prefer to not be a participant in a huge uncontrolled experiment. Usually when you do experiments on humans you get their consent first. It's usually quite a process to go through. Doing experiments on humans when those experiments can straight lead people to losing their livelihoods, their jobs, their families, their mental health, their lives.... pretty fucking evil. Not sure that would pass any university's review board at all. In saner times, it would probably get investigated by some UN agency for human rights violations but hey... who cares about all that when it's a global pandemic, right? Inalienable human rights are just a formality, right? So yeah, I really don't consent to participating in this experiment. How do I opt out?
  - secabeen 5y ago
    > So yeah, I really don't consent to participating in this experiment. How do I opt out? Stay home, don't physically interact with others. If that's not to your liking, move to a state or country with less strict rules and less robust governance.
dv_dt 5y ago
If this were modeled as a control loop with a external plant model it would be perfectly consistent with trying to extinguish the spread of covid. Other points of interest: R value eat at or higher than one increase anti-spread measures R value a little less than one - hold current social measures R value much smaller than 1 consider relaxing measures However we should also analyze That just about at every turn many places are relaxing too bringing numbers back up and re-stressing icus.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  But all that assumes these measures do anything all! Prove these measures actually work (and to a degree that outweighs their cost) and then we can talk! Hence my rain dance analogy. Until you prove this crap works, what we are doing is no better than rain dances.